Two articles were recently published by Al Barrett, Rector of Hodge Hill Church in east Birmingham, arguing (slightly tongue-in-cheek?) that we should establish an ‘anti-growth coalition’ in the Church of England, as a protest against the constant language of ‘we must grow’ coming from the centre. The first was his own article, ‘Simpler, Humbler, Bolder?’ published in July online in the journal Crucible and reproduced on his own blog, and the other was a guest post on his blog by Angela Sheard, who appears to be a curate at St Martins in the Field, London (though I could not find her on their website).
I should say immediately that there are points made in both articles that I like, and which I think it is important to hear. They articulate well the kind of weariness that many clergy and laity can feel, when the national language of growth and goals clashes with the reality on the ground of hard work, even drudgery, of the hum-drum of local church life—especially through the challenges of Covid. (Isn’t it interesting, though, how long ago Covid and lockdowns feel?). I love Al’s comment about Jesus’ focus on the significance of smallness:
Jesus’ parables and actions, his life, death and resurrection, breathe life into the imagination of the significance of the small: the tiny seeds, the yeast hidden in the dough, the lost sheep, the little children, the five loaves and two fish, the widow’s coin, the small circle of disciple-friends, the near-deserted crucifixion, the nail-wound in a hand, a breath, a couple of strangers on the road, the breaking of bread… These are witnesses, to those of us who have received them as such, of divine smallness.
So much so, I have reflected on this myself a few weeks ago.
I also like the way that Al plays back to the Church its own refrain (if it is its own) of ‘Simple, humbler, bolder’, in particular the principle of simplicity.
‘Simplicity’ has ancient roots within the Christian tradition, and among Franciscans in particular. It seeks to ground and embody the dependence on God expressed in humility, in the material realities of daily life. Sometimes named as ‘(voluntary) poverty’, it is lived out in solidarity with, and receptive openness to, those for whom poverty is an inescapably oppressive reality.
This is something close to my heart, as I was deeply shaped by the writings of Richard Foster, who after Celebration of Discipline, which included Simplicity as one chapter, then wrote a whole book on The Freedom of Simplicity. The primary meaning of the simple life is that it has one single, simple focus; we look at all of life through that single eye.
But this also has serious institutional and structural implications for the Church of England. One of the major challenges we face as a church is our complexity, not just as independent dioceses, so that no central body has the power to bring change to the whole church (let the reader understand!) since change has to happen in 42 different, legally separate entities. But also because, unlike in the Roman Catholic Church, individual parishes are also separate entities, which gives not only those at the centre nationally, but also bishops in their dioceses, a sense of trying to herd cats to bring any kind of systematic change.
And of course it is very hard to hear someone call for a ‘humbler’ church who then puts on very fancy clothes for services and takes up a privileged seat in the House of Lords. How can institutional privilege and power sit with this call for humility with any credibility or coherence?
Lastly, I agree with the danger of talking about grow driven by a sense of anxiety, with both authors name. Al: ‘I suggest we might notice (both within us and around us) a number of common responses (individual and collective) to collapse that are shaped by anxiety.’ And Angela: ‘Our focus is on growth in order to survive—our mission is powered by our fear of dying out and our instinctive need to safeguard ourselves and our institution.’
But this is where my agreement ends. It is striking that both articles draw on insights from organisational and economic development. One of Angela’s criticisms is that the language of growth is very damaging in the economic realm because this growth means more consumption, and (from George Monbiot) what the world actually needs is for economies to shrink, not grow.
These are strange places for Al and Angela to look, for two reasons. First, one of the common criticisms of those who are pushing back on the ‘vision and strategy’ agenda is that it is too focussed on ‘managerialism’, drawing insights from largely inanimate models in organisations, rather than from theological and organic images in the Scriptures. You just have to look at the syllabus for the leadership development programme for bishops to see this: plenty of insights from finance, organisational development, and psychology; none from scripture. It is more than ironic that Al and Angela make the same genetic mistake.
Secondly, they fail to actually address what numbers mean. Numbers matter because numbers are people. I wrote nearly ten years ago (the resistance to growth is not a new thing!):
We need to be constantly alert to the temptation to misuse power and find our self-esteem in the trappings of ‘success’, whatever that looks like. But in the end, numbers matter because people matter. Every statistic on church attendance is comprised of actual people, people for whom Jesus died and people who need to know about the truth of the Easter story and the difference Jesus can make in their life today. To believe that failure is the goal of the church is to believe that these people don’t matter.
This touches on the underlying theological issue which is often hidden underneath the debate about growth: do we think people need to hear the gospel, and come to a living faith in Jesus? Does this actually make a difference? I would love to hear Al and Angela’s answer to that question. My growing conviction about the Church of England is that, hidden under other debates, one of the biggest theological questions we have is whether faith in Jesus ultimately matters. I sense a quite widespread belief in universalism, which in the end says that coming to faith is not the be all and end all—and this robs us of a sense of the imperative of wanting to see people come to faith for themselves.
When you take even a brief glance at the renewal movements that have broken out through history, and led to new life and growth in the church—and often the transformation of society well beyond church boundaries—they have all been driven by a passionate sense that this good news we have in Jesus really matters, not just in the present, but in eternity.
Prior to starting my ordination training, I worked in industrial business (with Mars Confectionary in Slough), first in planning and forecasting, then in production management, and finally as a personnel manager. In that last role, I had to develop and implement a new appraisal system for the national office of around 170 employees. One of the central lessons in this was learning the difference between inputs and outputs—what it was that people brought to their role, and the results they achieved. Annual appraisal needed to focus on the outputs—what has happened, what results have been attained, and whether the agreed goals have been reached.
But what then followed, looking to the year ahead, was to focus on the inputs—what skills and training, what experience, what qualities the person brought to the role which had led to success or failure. Al and Angela’s complaint is that the narrative of ‘vision and strategy’ is focussing too much on the outputs, on whether we are growing or declining, and that there are other things we should be thinking about.
Yet, as with annual appraisal, so with this discussion: the measurable results force us to confront the reality of our situation. As T S Eliot said in the Four Quartets: ‘Humankind cannot bear very much reality.’ But reality is what we need! Too often the C of E has avoided the reality of the situation we are in, and I sense in debates in Synod that even now many senior leaders in the Church remain in denial. More than that, we have a God who is real (‘My God is Real’ was the title of one of David Watson’s first books) so we, of all people, should be ready to face reality square on.
The model of inputs and outputs is one that we find all over the New Testament. In Paul’s wonderful summary statement of what the gospel and growth is all about, he states succinctly:
I planted; Apollos watered; but God gave the growth (1 Cor 3.6)
ἐγὼ ἐφύτευσα, Ἀπολλῶς ἐπότισεν, ἀλλὰ ὁ θεὸς ηὔξανεν.
What is fascinating about this wonderful apothegm is that it comes in a section of Paul’s argument that we might characterise as ‘simpler, humbler, bolder’! Paul is explicitly countering the idea that his dynamic, church-planting, nation-changing, Spirit-empowered, apostolic-foundational ministry is of any importance at all! The Corinthians are dividing into factions, largely based on who they have decided are their theological heroes, and Paul dismisses this in no uncertain terms: ‘What is Paul?’ (Implied answer: nothing!)
So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. For we are God’s co-workers; you are God’s field, God’s building (1 Cor 3.7–9).
Look at the humility here: Paul is nothing! (Just sit with that for a moment…) Look at the simplicity here: all those who minister have one purpose! And look at the boldness: God will give the growth!
As Al actually points out, Stephen Cottrell’s commendation of the vision for the Church was indeed rooted in renewal as the input to the process: ‘Whatever strategies we develop need to begin with and flow from a profound spiritual renewal and a greater waiting upon God.’
This is why both Paul and Jesus so often use organic metaphors, of fields, and plants and sowing of seeds, and growth, and reaping, and harvest, and so on. It is not merely that they are living in an agrarian community, where they have no Tesco to create the illusion that the food we eat comes from a factory. No, it is for the deeper theological reason of what it means for us to be co-workers with God.
Any gardener or farmer will tell you this basic truth: there are things that we need to do if we want to see things grow. We need to sow; we need to water; we need to provide light; we need to feed the soil. All these things are needed—but they are not things that create growth. They merely allow the natural process to happen—and we would then add, given by God. One of the most disruptive parables in all of Jesus’ teaching occurs only in Mark’s gospel, the parable of the seed that grows ‘all by itself‘, because the growth comes from God alone, and not from the work of the farmer, even though that work is needed.
On the one hand, this is the answer to the anxiety we might feel about the institution: this is not about us, but about God. But at the very same time, this calls us to the responsibility of being co-workers with God, to sow and to water. And this is where we see the challenge to the Church of England. Research shows that the average Anglican does not want to do these things! Many of us are reluctant to invite, reluctant to talk about our faith, reluctant to challenge the culture around us and stand out as different. Yet these are all essential inputs to the process of sowing the seed, and if we don’t do that, we thwart God’s desire to bring growth and life.
Living things grow; dead things don’t. It seems to me no coincidence that Al’s opening metaphor is of a dead whale’s carcass, decomposing at the bottom of the ocean. This is an image of death, not life. Of course, there are things that need to die for God to bring his life—but why would anyone wish that the people of God who happen to belong to the institution of the Church of England should die? If we really are God’s field, and God’s building, why would we have such a death wish?
In him was life, and that life was the light of all people (John 1.4)
This Christmas, we want people to see that light and to receive that life. And that means we have some work to do.
Buy me a Coffee
I believe that the dioceses and the centre want growth primarily because it brings them more money, and they use the saving of souls as a pious-sounding peg upopn which to hang their agenda. It woujld be good to ask some liberal bishops: Saved from what? I suspect that most would waffle rather than speak of hell.
Throughout scripture the emphasis in regard to belief is quality rather than quantity.
What is the basis of that belief? What evidence can you cite?
Bureaucracies are always more interested in themselves than in the people they are supposed to serve. There are many more administrators per doctor-and-nurse in the NHS than in private medicine, yet the latter is better, and I have witnessed the growth of useless admin in our universities, wasting the time of researchers. Am I to believe that the Church of England’s bureaucracy, uniquely, is otherwise?
As for the liberal bishops and hell, let’s try asking them!
Many more administrators per doctor and nurse in the NHS than in private medicine? What’s your data for that?
I was referring to the administrator-to-nurse ratio, not the administrator-to-(doctor + nurse) ratio; my apologies. This ratio was four times higher in the NHS than in private medicine acording to a survey performed by a consultant oncologist at Barts, Maurice Slevin. He found 269080 managers, administrators and support staff and 266170 nurses, all quoted as “full time equivalent” figures. He then subtracted from the former figure all who operate ambulances and do maintenance work, and even doctors’ secretaries. In a private hospital, in contrast, he found 43 managers and 240 nurses. Even after his subtraction there were more than four times as many administrators per nurse in the NHS. Moreover his survey was performed in 2001 and in the six years prior to that the number of nurses had increased by 7.8% whereas the number of administrators had increased by 48%. Who believes that the situation has improved since?
Moreover in 1964 a total of 48016 people in the NHS were described as “administrative and clerical”, a figure which rose over the next 10 years to 79114; this rise took place at a much faster rate than for any other category of employee. (From a written parliamentary answer, quoted in “Restructuring the Health Service” by Tom Heller, 1978.)
‘Bureaucracies are always more interested in themselves than in the people ‘
So your comment is made on the basis of no actual evidence then.
Ian, you have regularly complained on this your blog about the bloat of administrators in dioceses. Let me turn this round into a question for you: Do you believe that they are all deeply dedicated to saving souls as their overwhelming priority?
Central staff are not just ‘administrators’, and not all administration is an evil!
In ours, many of the central staff are offering training, and supporting work in schools. My question is whether that is best done from the centre, or should be distributed more into parishes.
Not to mention how many of them there are, and whether their salaries would be better deployed in having more clergy or better-paid clergy.
‘Throughout scripture the emphasis in regard to belief is quality rather than quantity.’
I’m not entirely sure that’s true. (see below) I’m also not sure we can so easily play quality and quantity off against one another. A healthy tree will produce more fruit than an unhealthy one.
As somebody who would fall into the ‘diocese’ category of this comment, to have the very real disciples I know and serve alongside smeared as using the Gospel as a veil for their own ends is rather disheartening indeed. I must confess, the insinuation that dioceses are only really in it for the money is an incredibly cynical take and comes across as very holier-than-thou.
A blog comment with an Appendix:
Here’s a selection from Acts, but you’ll find similar mention of numbers of people in Mark, Luke, and Revelation. (Not to mention, of course, that there is an entire book of the Old Testament that seems particularly concerned with quantifying…)
‘Those who accepted his message were baptised, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.’ Acts 2.41
‘…praising God and enjoying the favour of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.’ Acts 2.47
‘But many who heard the message believed; so the number of men who believed grew to about five thousand.’ Acts 4.4
‘Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number.’ Acts 5.14
‘The choosing of the seven
In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food.’ Acts 6.1
‘So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.’ Acts 6.7
‘Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace and was strengthened. Living in the fear of the Lord and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers.’ Acts 9.31
‘The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord.’ Acts 11.21
‘He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a great number of people were brought to the Lord.’ Acts 11.24
‘So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.’ Acts 11.26
‘At Iconium Paul and Barnabas went as usual into the Jewish synagogue. There they spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Greeks believed.’ Acts 14.1
‘They preached the gospel in that city and won a large number of disciples. Then they returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch,’ Acts 14.21
‘So the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers.’ Acts 16.5
‘Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women.’ Acts 17.4
‘As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.’ Acts 17.12
‘They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying.’ Acts 28.23b
Indeed. Healthy trees produce fruit—which leads to further growth.
Ian, I typed in Anglican clergy up ladders clipping a topiary into shape.
This is what it came up with:-
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/e4cdlwxp9k75dlrd6aiiq/topiary.jpg?rlkey=e7p1dzxiiya6z0854ox1oidcn&dl=0
into bingAI
I did find Angela’s drawing on Exodus as rather strange.
‘I think that in the church, we have been striving for so long to make the same number of bricks with less and less straw, that we have become our own Pharoah. […] In fact, I think that the voice of Pharoah – the unrelenting shout of the mixed economy to grow, grow, grow – is drowning out the voice of God, calling us into the wilderness.’
Firstly, the analogy doesn’t really work. If you grow more straw, you solve the lack of straw problem. But at its heart the drive for ‘growth’ should not be driven by fear of collapse but as an extension of Jesus’ Great Commission – to make (and if I may be allowed to put words into Jesus’ mouth) more disciples. After all, what is the rationale in Jesus giving us ‘good news’ without an imperative to share that news? I disagree with the theological point that Angela seems to be making – that desiring to see more people to know the Lord Jesus, to have their lives transformed by his goodness and grace is synonymous with ‘drowning out the voice of God’.
Secondly, it seems to overlook one key element of the Exodus narrative – Pharoah demands the Israelites make the same number of brings with less straw because Moses asked that Pharoah let the Israelites go and worship God. Listening (and obeying) the voice of God led the Israelites to the situation that Angela believes we now find ourselves in.
Now, I’m well aware just how overstretched, overworked, and underappreciated people in our church feel and I am not suggesting that we simply chuck people and money at the ‘problem’, and damn the cost, in the hope of solving it. For me, the hope of growth and growth itself could come from saying ‘no’ or stopping things that take up our time and energy and channeling them elsewhere. Not ‘work harder’ as much as ‘work smarter’.
But if we have reached the point where we are questioning whether wanting more people to know the Lord Jesus, to hear the good news of the gospel of grace, whether that is desirable or not, then we’re not standing on the edge of the abyss, we’ve already fallen in.
Final Aside
For what its worth, growth is actually an excellent choice of word as a) it’s the language scripture often uses and b) is multivalent – you can grow in reach (have greater connection with your parish), depth (have the same number of people who are more rooted in their faith), and breadth (have more people). To hear ‘growth’ and think ‘capitalism’ says more about the hearer than it does the word growth.
Thanks. That is really helpful. Yes, growth is a multivalent word.
The other odd thing about Angela’s reference to ‘more bricks less straw’ is that there is about £10bn worth of straw available for anyone who applies for it!
The SDF (now SMMIB) funds have made a real difference, despite one or two well publicised failures.
“The Church” needs to grow – that should be obvious. And the local church should be big enough to be sustainable. But local churches also need to stay small enough to remain personal, to be ‘fellowships’ rather than impersonal ‘organisations’.
Whose church is it that we want to see grow? The congregation I usually attend? The one that looks to me as its leader? The Church of England? The Anglican communion? None of those I hope, so much as the Church of God-in-Christ. “New Life For All”in Northern Nigeria in 1964 taught me, that He blesses churches in an area that pray and work together in evangelism.
Sixty years on, the Christmas card circulating in my village says: “HAPPY CHRISTMAS AND A PEACEFUL NEW YEAR FROM YOUR LOCAL CHURCHES” and lists inside both Anglican and R.C. Christmas services at the church buildings in the benefice.
Yes indeed. One of the problems here is the ambiguity of the word ‘church’. I use it to mean, as in the NT, the people of God.
Growth, it seems to me, is God’s department. Which is Paul’s great humbling point to the celebrity loving Corinthian church. Your most favourite apostle or charismatic evangelist can plant or water a seed but only God gives the growth. Our responsibility is to do the sowing and planting and watering and to pray that God will be pleased to bless our efforts with growth. It was as the church in Acts 2 devoted itself to good, ‘healthy’ habits (apostles teaching, prayers, breaking of bread and fellowship) that the Lord added to their number. Simple (not complicated), but requiring faithful and dogged devotion.
Paul’s claim that ‘I am nothing’ is quite remarkable here…
I utterly agree there.
“We” sometimes rely on techniques or plans in place of God. I’m reminded of the apparent self-sufficiency of Laodicea…. described by God as”pitiful”
Love this article. I was pondering the theology of growth and of course the reality that every analogy about God’s people involve some form of growth both in the Old and in the New Testament.
That growth was not always good but that it happened was also something – see the wild vineyard needing to be dismantled in Isaiah. But there is a clear and unequivocal reality that growth is a part of God’s kingdom. Seek it and it will grow.
I suspect therefore that when we don’t expect growth, or in fact seek to be ‘anti growth’, we are actually simply seeking the inevitable growth of something else.
I hope to take the call to be a labourer in the field seriously and work to make conditions for growth right. I hope that others will do the same. I fear that instead people may be led away from that good work to other distractions or a belief that the work is not for them or can’t be done by them. The cares of this world that grow about us like weeds.
That was a very long winded way of saying that this article has hit the nail on the head! Thank you.
Thank you!
P.s. one of the most helpful books I’ve ever read on the whole issue of hitting the right attitude with regard to growth is written by Kent and Barbara Hughes, ‘Liberating ministry from the success syndrome’. Here is what the blurb says –
“This book describes their journey and their liberation from the “success syndrome”–the misguided belief that success in ministry means increased numbers. In today’s world it is easy to be seduced by the secular thinking that places a number on everything. But the authors teach that true success in ministry lies not in numbers but in several key areas: faithfulness, serving, loving, believing, prayer, holiness, and a Christlike attitude. Their thoughts will encourage readers who grapple with feelings of failure and lead them to a deeper, fuller understanding of success in Christian ministry.“
In any case, growth in spiritual depth and maturity under one pastor’s ministry might result in little or no numerical growth yet be the essential preparation for huge growth under the next pastor’s ministry: one sows, another reaps – both are doing the Lord’s work.
Thankyou Ian for your valuable insights
Paul advises us to “take heed how we build” whether with Gold or Straw.
As with most questions it is important to define our terms.
Jesus in declaring “the great commission” to Preach to Teach and to make obedient Disciples
How does one “ make a disciple?”
Well Paul’s method was to preach at very great cost to himself mostly; Death worked in Him but life worked in the Church.
To teach as with patient endurance, with tears often, and not without much opposition.
To make Disciples. My, what a work that was, but ably defined by Him throughout His Letters,
A veritable treasure trove of gold and precious stones produced under many restrictions.
Throughout history it has been demonstrated that “there is a time to gather together stones; and a time to cast away stones”
Think of those ejected Anglicans, prevented from preaching and teaching who none the less produced some very definitive epistles, Death worked in them but worked Life in the Church.
There are times to cast away stones that are not suitable for the building.
My own view over the decades has seen much emphasis on external growth initiatives along side a neglect of “feeding the flock” the other element of the Commission.
The dynamic of the Church is a well-fed full grown mature flock, such will attract seekers; without that one is only adding the dead to the already dead.
Think the day of Pentecost. There are times of great numerical
additions there are also times of long Declension.
Even Isaiah had to seal the word amogst his desciple
ISA.8:13 Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
8:14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem
ISA.8:15 And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.
8:16 Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.
Having read several reviews of the afore said Liberating Ministry from the Success Syndrome by Kent and Barbara Hughes it seems clear that for his early ministry all his ducks were in a row, how could he not be successful!
He certainly endured a time of prolonged winnowing and sifting.
Still Our Lord is the “faithful and true witness” and in prayer for him as He ever lives to make intercession for us.
God isn’t so much interested in our “success” as such, He is more interested in our “faithfulness” – “The just shall live by his faithfulness” [Habakkuk] (write it big)
12:7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.
12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
HEB. 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
3:2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.
3:3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.
3:4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.
Paul was faithful yet died having been abandoned by at least two churches that he had planted
and long patiently nurtured and agonized in prayer over, was He then not a success?
His churches were subsequently upbraided by Christ so far had they declined.
Paul in all his trials and frustrations at last came to acknowledge that he did not trust in himself but in “God who raises the dead.”
Even Jesus had the same experiences; at the end of His life was He successful? 3 years of patient teaching along will many confirming wonders and all his Disciples fled!
Pausing and praying on the topic of Growth I help lead two small church families both of around 12 each and a small home group of 6 including myself here in rural France. The growth I have seen in the last two years is phenomenal. No number growth but inner growth. Each individual has grown in their understanding and love of God and Jesus. Once this happens then we will wait for God to grow us in whatever way He feels necessary for us. Thankfully we do not have a large conglomerate telling us regularly to get more ‘bums on pews’. We just Pray, Worship, and Read Scripture. The Holy Spirit will enable us to do the rest. Chris x
I agree with you about other kinds of growth. But shouldn’t growth in maturity be marked by growth in confidence to share faith and invite others…?
I’ve read both Al’s and Angela’s blog posts, and I was struck by the lack of focus on prayer, and by a rather anthropocentric approach in both posts. Surely as we work out our response to the Great Commission, there should be a theocentric and prayer-focussed priority? It is after all a Co-mission – God and us in partnership in mission.
I have suffered as much as anyone in recent years from ‘Initiative Fatigue’, and I suspect this is partly what is behind the idea of the ‘Anti-Growth Coalition’. I’ve been around long enough to remember the Decade of Liturgical Revision in the 1990s, when the CofE was distracted from what should have been the Decade of Evangelism.
Of course we should be committed to growth. If the farmer who tends the fields around my house wasn’t committed to growth he would soon go out of business. It’s obvious that he does all he can to promote growth – cultivation, sowing, feeding, dealing with pests, irrigating – but he relies on the weather, which is the main factor in producing the growth that he needs to have a profitable harvest. This, too, is a co-operative effort – he has to put in the hard work to make things ready for whatever the weather may bring.
I currently serve (half-time) a small rural parish – ‘Eight Buildings, One Church’. Our average Sunday attendance is below 30, most of whom are older than me (and I’m past CofE retirement age). We may have small numbers, but we pray, we worship, we laugh and cry together, and people’s faith is sustained and deepened. From time to time, new people join our worshipping community, and remark on the warmth of our welcome. Many would be seen as ‘transfer growth’ as they retire here and move into our villages, but I don’t see that as a negative, as they bring new life and energy, and different insights and experiences to our community.
The CofE may be unsustainable long term in its current form, but the Church is very much alive. Why should the CofE have any more right to continue than the Primitive Methodist chapel opposite my Rectory which closed decades ago and is now a rather swish home? When Jesus said, ‘I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it’, he spoke truth about the Church, not (necessarily) the CofE.
Thanks for that very helpful comment. I think you have hit the nail on the head here: the problem with this humanistic or anthropocentric approach is that it cannot criticism ‘managerialism’ since it is introducing more of the same.
Sobering to have a closed building nearby. So the question is: what models of church are working in the countryside?
I am aware of new churches creating a minster model—a lively hub with critical mass somewhere central, planting out smaller communities round about…
Ian wrote, ‘So the question is: what models of church are working in the countryside?’ That’s the 64-member congregation question! My own rural benefice is seen as something of a success (nothing much to do with me, I haven’t been here long enough yet – the current model was set up about four incumbents ago).
We are eight villages, and eight buildings, all of which are medieval, listed and (with one exception) pretty chilly in the winter. Additionally, one has no electricity and two others have no heating at all, so we don’t use them during GMT. However, we are a single parish with one PCC, and the Sunday service – just one – rotates around the villages, so in the summer each village has the service every eight weeks. Most of the congregation travels to wherever the service is happening, so we average in the high 20s to low 30s each Sunday. In the countryside this equates to a critical mass, and it works for us. (It was rather unpleasantly described as ‘Caravan Church’ recently, but it does describe what happens I suppose.) The minster model doesn’t appeal, as it can create a feeling of dependency in the smaller communities, and the suspicion is that anything of any significance will always happen in the ‘big church’, to the detriment of the others. In our benefice, where the villages are all much the same size, we go out of our way to treat the buildings equally as far as possible for such as Remembrance Sunday and major festivals. Some of the villages have friends groups that raise funds for building upkeep. Of those that don’t, one building is in poor repair with local income solely from visitors who put coins in the wall box, and we may well have to make the unpalatable decision to mothball it if it continues to deteriorate.
We continue to impact the local community – for example, our Open the Book team goes into our two small Community Primary Schools every week, and the schools come to church for festivals and harvest. Church is not dead here!
Our countryside churches work because they include everyone, evangelicals and even Roman Catholics worship in the same ancient C of E Parish churches as they are the only Christian churches of any denomination in our small hamlets and village.
The C of E works best with growth from the Parish level and Parish churches, that is what its focus should be. Namely sustaining the Parish churches it already has, after all it has £8 billion in assets and investments to do so. Unlike other Protestant denominations in England the C of E does not really need to create new churches as it has had a church in every city, town and village in England for centuries
Exactly.
I vividly remember a conversation between the long-serving incumbent of a parish in a large village, and the curate who had ‘planted’ a congregation on his patch from a bigger church in the nearby town. It did not go well. ‘So, who will do the baptisms, funerals, weddings?’ ‘Er…’ ‘What about the congregation in the parish church who have worked hard over many years to cultivate relationship with the community?’ ‘Er…’ Clearly, the incumbent had not been properly consulted on these plans, and was, from my observation, apoplectic. The curate didn’t have a clue how to respond. This example of an, at best, clumsily founded ‘Fresh Expression’ (when did we last hear that phrase?) did nothing for the witness of the Church to a community that needed to hear the Good News.
We can do better than this, and in some places we have, but I completely agree that we need to put resources (financial and people) into our parish churches, as the CofE is the only church that has nationwide coverage and responsibility. We need to take seriously the opportunity that this provides.
That is encouraging.
Yes we need to celebrate our Parish ministry more in the C of E
Some observations:
It seems to me that we have an underlying assumption that there’s stuff we do which we consider “church” and there’s stuff we do that we consider “growth” and they’re very different and additional to each other. So “growth” is really a shorthand for the series of extra initiatives, special outreach efforts, new things etc., which has be resourced, planned, and done on top of all the normal “church”. Hence, you get the distinct impression that Al Barrett and Angela Sheard just want to get back to “church”. But shouldn’t doing “church” well be conducive to growth: i.e. being a visible witness in your community, applying faith to people’s lives, having space to worship and pray etc.. If growth efforts are lots of additional and different things, then of course that’s exhausting to those doing it, and worse risks leaving you less able to focus on the actual “church”, so even if your growth efforts get new people through the door you may struggle to keep them.
Secondly, I always think it’s important for the CofE in particular to remember that the parish system has never relied on a model of every congregation effectively paying their way. Our churches were endowed with resources to pay for things, and as early as Queen Anne’s reign we were moving significant sums of money around the church to look after the poorer parishes. St Paul describes the Church as the body of Christ – we don’t all look the same, or have the same function. There some hands, and some feet, and some eyes, and some lungs etc.. We should allow ourselves to recognise that.
‘But shouldn’t doing “church” well be conducive to growth: i.e. being a visible witness in your community, applying faith to people’s lives, having space to worship and pray etc.. ‘
Yes, spot on. So perhaps it seems as though, for Al and Angela, that is not a normal part of what they think church is about?
If so, perhaps there’s the problem…
I suspect it’s the opposite. They think that’s what church should be about, but don’t think it’s part of growth, or have to compromise it in order to do the “growth” things demanded of them. Maybe we all disagree a lot less that we realise?
If so, I think they have found a slightly odd way of expressing it…?
I wonder if +Guli’s recent talk ‘ Encouraging the weary with a word’ speaks to this?
What was the content?
As soon as I read those articles my thoughts went to what you said about numbers being people. And for all their rhetoric, they don’t deal with that.
In addition, during Covid a lot of people said that they were growing disciples – it just looked different from Evangelicals. This was shown up post-Covid when so few of those ‘disciples’ returned after the Sunday morning habit had been broken.
Kyle
Convince people they will go to hell if they miss a Sunday and they are more likely to attend. Is the game bums on seats whatever the cost or is it preaching Jesus and worshipping God?
I don’t think people [convinced] they will go to hell makes a serious dent in the numbers. I think that people who simply don’t want to gather with other believers, simply don’t see the points of receiving the sacraments are people that were poorly discipled. And Covid exposed their teachers.
Kyle
That assumes people have bags and bags of spare time. I think I’m right in saying that I’ve been to church every week this year, but I can well understand others not having that time, but I’m saying in churches that preach that not attending is a sin you obviously get higher attendance right?
Just amongst families I know, pretty much all the adults are in full time work. Most are also trying to keep their house from falling down because they could only afford a “project”. And there’s a far higher expectation of the level of involvement in a child’s education than when I was a kid. Add to that that more families than ever before have to travel a long way to visit relatives.
One of my bug bears is that churches have not changed at all to accommodate the massive social changes in the last half century.
Excellent article Ian. Your expression: “numbers are people” calls to mind Robin Gamble (Founder of ‘Leading your Church into Growth’): “we count people because people count.”
I knew Robin from CYFA camps when I was a teenager. He is spot on. Lovely way of putting it!
Of course churches should grow, but what we are seeing in various places is a reaction against the ‘vision and strategy’ that has so dominated the C of E in recent years. We shouldn’t be surprised at that reaction: it is based on an ecclesiology that is alien to Anglicanism and uses a language that most of the C of E does not use.
It will be interesting to see how much of this survives a change of Archbishop of Canterbury.
Yes, it really will!
But which elements of the language do you believe are strange, and what is the alien ecclesiology?
I cannot think of any parish church in the land which was not at some point a church plant…!
Of course all churches were planted at some point, and some on-going church planting will be necessary now. The difference now is the emphasis on the ‘mixed ecology’ which sees churches set up in random places, often close to existing parish churches and competing with them. This is a far cry from the days of new churches being an extension and development of the existing parish system. I know clergy of various traditions who are frustrated by the local resource church draining people away from them. And then there is the question of what goes on in assorted fresh expressions and BMOs – very little of it seems to bear much relation to any inherited tradition of Anglican worship.
The language of vision and strategy is often impenetrable, and so easily lends itself to parody, as demonstrated here:
https://cyber-coenobites.blogspot.com/2024/01/church-vacancy-faciliation-facilitator.html
This jargon-filled verbiage finds its way into diocesan documents too. One FAQ document produced by this diocese, supposedly intended to help people undestand the strategy, contained this gem:
“To grow toward our vision of 150 new worshipping communities, a particular emphasis of the role of mission hub churches will be the enabling of new congregations / worship communities / church plants – Our expectation is that a large proportion of churches engaging with this additional focused enabling will be those who are already utilising Healthy church 8 EQ resource.”
I asked on social media if anyone could translate this into English, and some of the responses I got were not suitable to be repeated in a family publication!
Thanks Fr Dexter. I agree wholeheartedly here. It is interesting to note that calls for the abolition of the Archbishops’ Council are now emerging from a variety of quarters and traditions. That is just one body that is part of the church ‘machine’ that needs dismantling. Giles Fraser’s analysis is well worth a read in connection with what you say
https://unherd.com/2024/11/burn-down-the-church-machine/
Fraser’s idea that Welby and the CoE’s current movers and shakers are evangelical of some form is absurd. They are church liberals – people whom the writers of the New Testament and church leaders of the 1800 years thereafter would call apostates and heretics.
I’m so cynical about church growth because I’ve seen so much dishonesty with it and because of the now obvious association between huge church crowds and corrupt leadership (Hillsong, Bethel, Soul Survivor etc)
Church leaders need to actually be Christians, otherwise it’s just a personality cult and who cares how many people you con out of time and money?
Consider it possible that they start out as Christians but get seduced by power. Who can find megachurches in the NT polity?
I don’t believe in Once Saved Always Saved! Plenty of verses explicitly refute it. What I find in the New Testament is Once backslidden (too far, and from a position of genuine salvation), always backslidden.
and some support it.
The entire Letter to the Hebrews is a sermon against “once saved, always saved”, because it is warning ethnic Jewish believers who were coming under persecution for their faith in Christ that they must not revert to Judaism (which was not persecuted by pagan Rome at that time). Explicit verses are Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-29. Then there are 1 Corinthians 9:27, Revelation 3:5, Romans 11:22, Matthew 7:21-23, 2 Peter 2:20-22, James 5:19-20 and their implications. The New Testament is full of warnings about people who set out but fail to reach their destination (1 Corinthians 10 , Hebrews 4) and parables of shoddy servants and unready bridesmaids (Matthew 25). Why is fear of God commended among Christ’s faithful (Acts 9:31, 2 Corinthians 7:1, Ephesians 5:21, 1 Peter 1:17), given that “fear has to do with punishment” (1 John 4:18)?
I am aware of scriptures such as “I will never leave you nor forsake you” (Hebrews 13:5). But to whom does ‘you’ refer? The faithful; but what if somebody ceases to be faithful? There is also Paul’s rhetorical question, “What can separate us from the love of Christ?” (Romans 8:35-39), followed by a list of things that cannot separate us. But we can separate ourselves from God. Proponents of OSAS also point to John 10:27-28: “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.” Jesus is affirming that no third party – even Satan – can cut them out of the flock; but we are capable of leaving the flock of our own accord. Christians have their freedom not to sin, which was lost in Genesis 3, restored to them in Christ. But freedom means freedom to choose whether to sin or not. Our helper against temptation is the Holy Spirit, who can bring victory every time but who does not force us to heed Him. There is no point in praying for people who wantonly abuse the freedom not to sin granted to them in Christ (1 John 5:16), so this abuse of Christian freedom does indeed go on.
What we actually find in scripture is a different one-way door: ‘once backslid, always backslid’ (Hebrews 6:4-6). This is not a statement that Jesus has no power to save apostates, but a statement that those who backslide too far never wish to return to his fold.
Anton, what does ‘guarantee’ mean to you?
Tell me in what verse the word appears. And please note that Jesus affirms not even Satan can cut believers out of His flock, but we are capable of leaving the flock of our own accord.
John Bunyan’s ‘iron cage’?
Anton
I think that really depends on how you define “Christian”. Personally I suspect if I could look into the soul of every church leader in the UK Id probably think that most of them were less moral and less *Christian* than the average atheist. Church leadership has almost always been a vessel for creating power, sex or money to a corrupt few and has rarely been merely a way of organizing the meeting of Christians for worship.
Yes, things changed from the scriptural church in the 4th century.
We all can recognize a sick church, [ they used to have paintings of thermometers in their grounds.]
What would a healthy church look like?
Here there are multiple voices attempting to define what a healthy Church might look like if their proponents were only listened too. [aka the previously mentioned Giles Frazer]; which reminds me of the woman losing blood who had tried many Physicians to no avail.
How did the early Christian church survive when the odds were all stacked against it?
Ken Curtis, Ph.D asked the Question @
http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/the-spread-of-the-early-church-11629561.html#google_vignette
I wholeheartedly agree with your comment about a widespread theology of universalism. It might come in various shades, from hopeful to confessional, but I truly think it’s behind the malaise and division in the Church of England at the moment. As you rightly say, why pursue the growth of God’s Kingdom as people turn to follow Jesus (mandated in Matthew 28 etc!) when you believe we’re all saved anyway?!
I guess you may have meant “herd” cats not “heard” them but actually both meanings might apply.
I think you might be right! Corrected.
Anton re guarantee:
Ephesians 1: 13 & 14.
Paul also expresses a similar view in 2 Corinthians 1: 21 & 22.
These verses have to be reconciled with Hebrews 6:4-6, that “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance”. So you can lose the Holy Spirit by your own choice – not by Satan’s or anybody else’s, which I take to be the guarantee Paul speaks of. What is your take on Hebrews 6:4-6, please?
Im not sure, Anton, about Hebrews 6, though I know a number of commentators do not view the people referred to as actual born again believers. But I dont think you can use it to negate God’s guarantee. It’s not what I would call a guarantee if in reality God guarantees nothing.
But regarding Hebrews 6, I wonder if, given the book is called ‘Epistle to the Hebrews’ , the writer here is indeed thinking specifically of Jews who appear to have begun to follow Jesus. I find it interesting that in the previous passage he refers to the basics of Christianity, at least as viewed then, and specifically refers to for example, ‘dead works/useless rituals’. And it’s as if the writer is saying – do you really need to be taught these things again? Dont you understand even the basics? Im not sure that is the sign of genuine believers.
I suspect the people to which the writer refers are specifically Jewish, who although seeing the good and perhaps impressive things (hence reference to the Holy Spirit, perhaps in healings etc) that genuine followers of Jesus produced, had initially started to follow, but ultimately decided that their ‘good’ works and rituals of Judaism produced salvation, not Jesus’ death on a cross. I think this understanding also makes sense of ‘crucifying the Son of God all over again’, which reminds me of Peter’s view in Acts that it was the Jews who had killed Jesus. These Jews were effectively doing the same again, regarding Jesus as a false Messiah, worthy of scorn and death. In the writer’s view they have shown their apparent initial repentance to be worthless and meaningless, and thus showing no real faith.
As such I tend not to think of them as born again believers, and that they were specifically Jews and therefore the passage should not be applied to anyone and everyone, as that was not the writer’s intention.
If they had the Holy Spirit, as Hebrews 6 clearly implies, then they were born again.
It is not a guarantee of nothing. It is a guarantee that no third party can tear you away from Christ. That is not nothing, is it?
I think youre making assumptions that arent clear in the text. In an earlier post you said ‘so you can lose the Holy Spirit..’ and here you say ‘If they had the Holy Spirit…’. But the text itself says nothing about losing the Holy Spirit, or that they were baptised in the Spirit/the Spirit lived in them. Im just not convinced the language the writer uses reflects what you think it means.
Youre also trying to define the words so the text fits in with your own understanding: ‘It is a guarantee that no third party can tear you away from Christ’, except the text doesnt mention third parties or anything like it.
If I give a guarantee and later I tear it up, then my ‘guarantee’ was not a guarantee at all. It is, after all, only God who provides salvation, so He must be the one who takes it away, unless you believe we save ourselves. It must be God who removes his deposit of guarantee. The unmerited gift has been offered and received, but later the giver takes his gift back. That doesnt make sense to me.
Your understanding also, it seems to me, completely negates Paul’s view that when saved/born again, you are a ‘new creation’, and that God’s own righteousness has been imputed to you. It is HIS righteousness, not your own.
I don’t think I’ll change your mind but my aim is to convince Ian’s readers, whom I am content to see decide for themselves whether the persons in Hebrews 6 once had the Holy Spirit: “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance”.
Other verses are decisive without explicitly referring to the Holy Spirit: “if we deliberately keep on sinning after receiving knowledge of the truth – then there is only expectation of judgement and raging fire…how much more severely does someone deserve to be punished who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that has sanctified them…?” (from Hebrews 10). Anybody who has experienced sanctification must have been a believer. Or Romans 11:22 “consider the goodness of God to you, provided that you continue in his goodness; otherwise you will be cut off”.